The Archival Research of Roots Tourists: Profiles,Objectives,and Motivations

1. Introduction

Gone are the medieval conceptions of travel limited to adventures for pleasure or places of pilgrimage to encounter the sacred. ¹ Nowadays, a wide variety of motives make it possible to travel from their places of residence and enjoy tourist leisure. These include the satisfaction of different human needs, such as carrying out activities that complement strictly professional and work-related ones, enjoying the contemplation of a natural or urban landscape, socializing with other people or participating in collective events, as Possebon et al. ² have shown. All these factors or motivations imposed by the destination are accompanied by its image and increasingly by gender, age, and the composition of the travel group. ³

All these factors to which we have alluded end up leading to a demand for alternative tourism experiences to the more traditional ones in a context of growth in international tourism activity ⁴ ; a greater appreciation of culture and tangible or intangible heritage ⁵ ; a desire to get away from overcrowded places ⁶ ; or a concern for identity aspects in plural societies. ⁷ Among these alternatives are trips to the land of ancestors and relatives to learn about and enjoy cultural, natural, ethnic, national, or religious aspects of the society of family origin,⁶ getting to know relatives, business opportunities ⁸ or research in historical archives. ⁹

In recent years, scientific research has paid special attention to the capacity of roots trips to strengthen individual and collective identities, ¹⁰ to create community bonds between genealogy enthusiasts,⁹ or to achieve social and personal ties between the destination population and the population of tourist origin. ¹¹ However, the motivations and characteristics of the roots tourist who travels to share his or her tourist leisure time with genealogical and historical research in historical archives in the destination place have not been studied with as much attention, something already pointed out by Yakel, ¹² which has motivated, to a large extent, this work.

This heterogeneity in the motivations for making a genealogical trip implies, in practice, the existence of two general typologies of roots tourists, which correspond to a traditional differentiation in the exercise of cultural tourism leisure between an active type of tourism leisure and a more passive one. ¹³ In the specific case of roots tourism, it makes it possible to distinguish between tourists who want to get to know a place through mere contemplation or living in geographical space and others who, in addition to this, spend part of their time doing research. For this reason, we intend to find out the profile of the tourist who carries out research in historical archives, in different aspects such as their sociocultural characteristics, objectives, travel patterns, degree of satisfaction and details of the research activities and, finally, motivations for making this type of trip. To achieve this, we have conducted a latent class analysis (LCA) through the poLCA package, using R, to define different types of genealogical tourist profiles. Once the potential subtypes of genealogical tourists have been identified, the Shapiro-Wilk test and the Mann-Whitney U tests are used through the Stata software to carry out the descriptive analysis of the individuals in each group and the mean differences between groups concerning satisfaction with the means of consultation and genealogical motivations, all of this on a survey carried out on Hispanic-American genealogists who have carried out roots tourism during the past 3 years. In this way, nonparametric tests assess whether the data follow a normal distribution and compare the distributions of independent groups.

2. Roots Tourism and Archival Research in Historical Archives

All genealogical activity involves research in historical archives, whether public or private, in person or remotely. The research includes searching for documentary information on relatives and ancestors’ public or private acts, and data from the past is obtained to manage the information in the present and transmit it in the future. ¹⁴ This search for historical references and documents has been facilitated in recent years by resources accessible on the internet, ¹⁵ technological and commercial developments in genealogy, genetic genealogy testing, online databases and improved access to historical archives.⁸ As a result, there are several primary sources of information to which any genealogist can turn. There are, on the one hand, the indexes and data provided by the historical archives themselves and, on the other hand, those obtained through references obtained and offered to the general public by cultural and genealogical associations, individuals, genealogical management companies such as Geneanet or MyHeritage, or religious institutions such as the Catholic Church¹⁵ or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on the FamilySearch website.

All of them provide access to archival holdings in a context of increased digitization of documents, online dissemination, and detailed publication of these holdings ¹⁶ and give users the possibility to access resources before, during, and after they visit the archives. ¹⁷ That has ultimately increased the number of users, ¹⁸ although digitized and accessible online collections are still rare.¹⁶

On the other hand, new technologies offer other options linked to archives useful for genealogical research. Thus, for example, the collection and accessibility of oral histories ¹⁹ and personal documents such as private diaries, songs, books, or films provide information on the daily life and culture of communities, ²⁰ while the contributions on family history findings that amateur genealogists include on specialized websites or in the archives themselves facilitate the interpretation of historical studies from a popular point of view. ²¹ However, technology can also be used as a form of communication with its users, as museums do. These cultural spaces have similarities with historical archives since, in addition to their own social, cultural, and historical value, they contribute to the offer of tourist products and services of each destination with activities that seek an emotional response in the spectator through transmission, education, and entertainment. ²² Museums often employ forms of communication with users to create more personalized and contextualized interactive tourism experiences ²³ through blogs and online articles in which digitized content is created and also shared on platforms such as YouTube or interacted with on social networks such as Facebook and Instagram.¹⁷

However, generally, the data provided by remote information sources are insufficient to carry out complete genealogical research, leading to the need to visit historical archives in person. Remote digital research does not include documents that are not available due to the refusal of some of the depositories to make them generally available on the internet; due to the lack of material and economic resources to be able to carry out the work of collecting, indexing and making documents and indexes available ²⁴ ; or due to the decentralization of these collections to smaller units, such as parishes or town councils, which do not have the material or economic capacity to make them available digitally.¹⁵ Compared with this, conducting genealogical research in person remains an attractive option in itself for many genealogists, even if the documents are in another centralized archive because they prefer to research in a place with an archive that has original documents or copies of records¹⁸ and has the collaboration of archivists.¹⁷ In these cases, face-to-face research allows combining this activity with a visit to the family's place of origin, including places where their ancestors participated in religious or civil rituals.

In this way, we understand not only the essential value of historical archives for general genealogical work but also their social importance from the point of view of the individual and collective identities of the community. Nevertheless, it also allows us to ask ourselves several questions which we consider fundamental to this work: What is the link between the archive and cultural heritage tourism? Is there tourism associated with visiting or researching historical archives? What type of archives do they usually visit? Where do they decide to spend the night? What is their satisfaction with the service offered by the archives? What are the personal, family, and social motivations which influence their research? The answer to these questions may be interesting for public institutions, communities, business sectors, and academia related to cultural tourism, especially in rural areas with economic, cultural, and social development needs, since, if they exist, it would be necessary to know the profile, motivations, and circumstances that guide the people who enjoy this type of tourism, to provide an adequate tourist offer and an evaluation of the effects of tourist activity for the residents.

In order to try to answer these questions, it is valid, in the first place, to check whether there are historical precedents, current statistics on tourist visits to the central historical archives or even a list of factors related to the archival field which can facilitate genealogical research at a distance or in person and which may end up justifying the carrying out of these trips. From a historical point of view, there are not many references that can be used to measure the phenomenon, even though in the nineteenth century, the first samples of trips in which scientific research was carried out in archives in places with an attractive heritage, cultural, and natural offer appeared in Europe. ²⁵ Nor is there any public information available in Spain and Latin America on how many people engage in genealogical or roots tourism. It is, therefore, impossible to determine how many of these people research in the archives of their areas of family origin. However, although it is rarely available for public dissemination, there is information with internal statistical data in the historical archives of public administrations and diocesan archives on the number of people and the purpose of the research that each user dedicates to their documentary collections. However, when these reports are published, it is confirmed that a significant percentage of people who research in archives do so for genealogical interest, especially in diocesan archives and in the parishes of the Catholic Church, as occurred in the Diocesan Archive of Zamora, which, in 2019, indicated that 90% of its consultations had genealogical motivations. ²⁶

In any case, as we have pointed out, it is worth reviewing the role of historical archives in the development and practice of research, including genealogical research, the search for, creation and maintenance of identities and collective memories, but also in cultural promotion, including their relationship with museums. It should also include the possibilities and options for improvement in their relationship with their users, as archives can contribute to developing tourist visits when genealogical research and tourist leisure are combined.

3. Historical Archive and Their Social Influence

Historical archives have traditionally been considered repositories of historical documents and research institutions.¹⁷ However, in recent years, they have been given more excellent protection due to their status as repositories of humanity's rich cultural documentary heritage. ²⁷ They are the result of activity with diverse social functions such as formal support for responsible and transparent administrative actions, the safeguarding of the individual and community memory of a human collective,⁷ the knowledge of society, the promotion of democracy and the protection of citizens’ rights, ²⁸ or the improvement of the quality of life, ²⁹ with the capacity to critically study the past and incorporate collaborative and community points of view that question the present. ³⁰ However, in addition, historical archives must be able to create social impacts through a process of affective exchange and participatory practice in which they open to new and diverse users and conceptualize spaces in which communities participate in the formation of their own historical narratives. ³¹ For this reason, the documentary collections preserved in historical archives and presented in a variety of formats, including digital, maintain value and meaning from one generation to the next,²⁹ as they are spaces of discovery and interaction between researchers, ³² capable of interconnecting with other archives and museums and contributing to cultural diversity in their communities. ³³

These powers are what justify many historical archives to open their doors to their community, incorporating new methodologies, activities and themes of outreach and communication, such as exhibitions on their documentary collections, ³⁴ development of projects for local historical societies, dissemination of local traditions,⁷ history projects dedicated to specific groups and communities,²¹ and finally, broadening the range to less professional users and researchers through the improvement of visibility and knowledge of these archives by digital means. ³⁵ Thus, the inclusion of new users, as in the case of researcher tourists, is fundamental for strengthening the activity of historical archives and guaranteeing their historical continuity, as these new users collaborate in finding records and knowledge maintaining the documentary collections,¹⁴ creating new ones from the understanding of the contexts of the records they study and collaborating in making sense of the social reality of the environment of these institutions, ³⁶ as they provide greater public participation in their management and use. ³⁷

However, despite this, the question arises as to whether these archives can currently offer an adequate face-to-face service for genealogical researchers and tourists, as sufficient resources are needed to meet the different demands of these and those of the locals, ³⁸ a circumstance visible in the Spanish historical archives, which have to develop their traditional work with the requests for information and documents from thousands of people from Latin America who are trying to obtain Spanish nationality. ³⁹ Therefore, given that among the users we include academics or amateur historians, anthropologists, or genealogists—in many cases familiarly and sentimentally linked to these places³⁶—we must emphasize that the latter simultaneously search for references from their past with the conducting real and culturally meaningful interactions with the target community.⁶ It includes its archives,³⁸ whose documentary collections in collaboration with social narratives, become cultural spaces that generate meanings and contexts necessary to maintain and create the historical memory of their societies,¹⁴ with a perspective of the present and future, ⁴⁰ in some cases to strengthen national identity¹⁴ and, in others, with an alternative perspective that questions national identity and the prevailing social order through the vindication of forgotten or displaced minorities in official memory, ⁴¹ from an orientation toward reconciliation and social justice.⁷

For this reason, archives act as spaces that carry tacit stories that reflect the cultures, beliefs, and identities of the people and societies that produced them.³² In this way, archival documents influence the historical narrative, social cohesion, and one's own stories³³; they give the people who study them the possibility of reconciling with their origins and placing their ancestors in a broader historical narrative that allows us to personalize the past¹² and connect with a shared cultural heritage assumed as our own.²⁰

4. Materials and Methods

Given the relationship between genealogy and historical archives and the influence and social importance of the latter, it is important to determine the profile of the genealogical tourist who researches in archives, their degree of heterogeneity, their main objectives when they travel, their degree of satisfaction and their main personal and social motivations.

To answer the study questions posed in the previous sections, it is necessary to contrast them through the most appropriate methodologies. Therefore, considering the existence of previous scientific literature that, for the most part, gathers studies of theoretical,^{11, 42} qualitative,^10,6 qualitative and quantitative, ⁴³ or quantitative with reduced samples. ⁴⁴ This article contributes as a quantitative study with a larger sample size. Accordingly, the first step was the development of a survey based on existing literature that would elicit relevant information. This survey (Supplemental Materials), addressed to individuals who have carried out genealogical research, was disseminated between October 6, 2024 and December 19, 2024. In total, 227 valid responses were obtained, ensuring that the sample represents an infinite population with a confidence interval of 95% and a margin of error of 6.51%. ⁴⁵ This sample size makes it possible to apply a wide range of methodologies with robust results, even more so considering that the potential number of genealogical tourists appears to be relatively small in the overall numbers.⁸

It should be noted that the survey was circulated in Spanish through digital media among Spanish-speaking genealogical researchers and from countries under the Hispanic area of influence. In addition to the sociodemographic questions (sex, age, country of residence, nationality, and professional status), The first section of the survey asks about the genealogical journey and the second section 2 about genealogical research. The questions combine check-box style questions, where the possible answers are determined, and questions on a scale of 1 to 7, where respondents must give a score to the statements made in quantitative terms, with 1 being the lowest value and 7 the highest value.

Once the data had been obtained and cleaned, our objective was to analyze the sample from a descriptive point of view to obtain a generalist profile of the genealogical tourist. In this study, we consider a genealogical tourist to be a genealogical researcher who has traveled and spent at least one night in a specific destination, with the main reason for their visit being genealogical research. Thus, we proposed running a LCA through the poLCA package, ⁴⁶ using R software, ⁴⁷ which allows us to contrast whether, considering the multiple genealogical motivations of the tourist, different types of profiles can be defined, in the manner of previous studies in other areas. ⁴⁸ Finally, having identified the potential subtypes of genealogical tourists, we carried out a descriptive analysis of the individuals in each group. We tested whether there were differences in means between groups in the responses regarding satisfaction with the means of consultation and genealogical motivations. For the latter purpose, considering the variables’ non-normality, we used the Mann-Whitney U test, measured by the Shapiro-Wilk test. We used Stata software for both tests and descriptive analysis. ⁴⁹

5. Results

5.2. Latent Class Analysis

Once the general composition of the sample is known, it is necessary to contrast the possible existence of subtypes of genealogical tourists. As previously stated, this type of subdivision is common in the academic literature on tourism. As already indicated, the methodology chosen is LCA. For its calculation, we took the 16 variables related to motivations and discrete quantitative variables on a scale of 1 to 7. Usually, starting from a standard number of classes in the literature (usually three), higher or lower numbers of classes and their best or worst fit are tested. In this case, the number of variables and observations means that the calculation of three classes is not appropriate since the number of estimated parameters would be greater than the number of observations, causing negative degrees of freedom. Therefore, the optimal solution of classes is two. The results of the relevant tests are given in Table 1.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Goodness of Fit for LCA Model for Two Classes.

AIC	BIC	G2	X2
10,554.91	11,215.92	7,705.98	2.798681e + 14

MLE	Parameters	d.f.	n
−5,084.454	193	34	227

Source: Authors.

Notes: LCA: latent class analysis; AIC: Akaike information criterion; BIC: Bayesian information criterion; MLE: Maximum likelihood estimation.

However, in the results of the LCA analysis, two types of genealogical tourists can be distinguished. On the one hand, those under class 1, motivated to search for information about their ancestors, are related to particular events that provoke interest in genealogical research. They are genealogists who approach research from a more emotional plane, seeking connections and relationships beyond completing the family tree. In contrast, those individuals classified as class 2 appear to limit their genealogical activity exclusively to the factual side. These latter genealogists are motivated by knowledge of history and, like class 1, by completing the family tree but do not abound in emotional issues. These individuals conceive of genealogy as something to do in their spare time, not as a hobby, but with a character that, in a way, can be defined as professional. Based on these definitions, we will call the individuals of class 1 “Roots Genealogical Tourists”—52.6% of the sample—and “Research Genealogical Tourists”—those of class 2, who comprise the remaining 47.4%. This differentiation corresponds to those established in other works on roots tourism, such as those of Higginbotham ⁵⁰ and Prince,⁴² for whom the popularization of genealogical practice has allowed an increase in the number of genealogical trips, although under the configuration of two general types of tourists with different ways of designing and carrying out their trips. They define the first as roots tourists, and although part of their trip includes visits to archives, their main objective is to experience a physical connection with their past through the visit and direct contact with people from the places where their ancestors came from.⁵⁰ They determine the latter as tourists who trace their lineage,⁴² conceptualizing them as tourists who focus their trips on archival research.

Next, Figure 1 shows the defining elements of each class according to the type of motivation. The percentages in this figure are interpreted as the probability that an individual in each class would score each statement. Within the framework of personal motivations, the negative perception that Research Genealogical Tourists have about considering their genealogical research as leisure stands out, transforming into a 41.82% probability of responding with a 1 to this statement. In a similar vein, these individuals move considerably away from motivations related to self-knowledge (1: 47.4%) and personal identity (1: 75.46%), and they are also not moved by knowing about the existence of hereditary diseases (1: 79.85%). On the contrary, Roots Genealogical Tourists present more homogeneously distributed responses, except for self-knowledge (7: 38.87%), which is mainly skewed to the most favorable values. Finally, obtaining citizenship is irrelevant for both classes, while archival research is highly relevant.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Travel motivations—comparison by class. Source: Authors using poLCA R package. Note: Dark—Class 1, Light—Class 2.

Concerning family motivations, the pattern of behavior between classes seems more similar. In both cases, the character of homage to ancestors, knowledge of family history, and completing the family tree are very prominent on the positive end, although Research Genealogical Tourists are a little less so in the former (7: 67.41% vs 52.52%). Precisely, their emotional disengagement is transmitted to the motivations related to traditions and the creation of family ties and to the marked disinterest in knowing whether there were ancestors who were historical figures or celebrities (1: 61.91%). Consequently, the opposite is true for Roots Genealogical Tourists, who are more interested in these aspects, among which knowledge of traditions (6 and 7: 43.14%) and the creation of ties (48.56%) stand out.

Finally, social motivations present very heterogeneous results: first, it is important to leave a legacy for both classes, although Roots Genealogical Tourists significantly exceeds Research Genealogical Tourists (7: 62.83% vs. 45.52%). Regarding the connection with general historical events, Roots Genealogical Tourists stand out (7: 42.92%). However, Research Genealogical Tourists presents a relatively homogeneous distribution of responses, suggesting that some of its individuals may find some interest in this one. Nevertheless, when it comes to traumatic events (e.g., wars, persecutions, and revolutions) or natural catastrophes (e.g., earthquakes, eruptions, and floods), the interest of Research Genealogical Tourists individuals shifts to lower scores. Roots Genealogical Tourists, on the other hand, has a more homogeneous response distribution probability but always at moderately low levels. Consequently, these results suggest that interest in particular historical events lack substantial relevance in the set of genealogical tourists, such as hereditary diseases and obtaining citizenship.

5.3. Descriptive Analysis of Genealogical Tourists’ Subtypes

Once the two possible classes of genealogical tourists have been identified, it is interesting to perform a descriptive analysis to identify possible differences in the profiles. Table 2 shows the descriptive statistics of both classes and of the sample in general. In addition, for those questions with quantitative answers, we evaluate whether their distribution is normal and whether there are differences between classes.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Descriptive statistics by class

	All	Class 1	Class 2		All	Class 1	Class 2
	Percentages				Mean (standard deviation)
Sex	[M] 61.23 [W] 38.77	[M] 57.5 [W] 42.5	[M] 65.42 [W] 34.58	Satisf-Internet	5.16 (.10)	5.15 (.13)	5.18 (.16)
Age	[≤35] 6.17 [≥65] 29.07 Median: 60	[≤35] 9.17 [≥65] 21.67 Median: 54	[≤35] 2.80 [≥65] 37.38 Median: 61	Satisf-PubArch	6.1 (.10)	5.95 (1.32)	6.29 (1.15)
Country	[SP] 55.07 [F] 44.93	[SP] 44.17 [F] 55.83	[SP] 67.29 [F] 32.71	Satisf-DiocArch*	5.44 (.14)	5.6 (1.59)	5.29 (1.72)
Work	[W] 57.27 [R] 34.36	[W] 64.17 [R] 23.33	[W] 49.53 [W] 46.73	Satisf-ParArch	5.37 (.15)	5.14 (1.72)	5.58 (1.62)
Party (n = 198)	[A] 46.46 [C] 30.3 [Fa] 12.63 [Fr] 6.06 [GP] 4.55 [TO] [O]	[A] 47.22 [C] 25.93 [Fa] 15.74 [Fr] 8.33 [GP] 2.78 [TO] [O]	[A] 45.55 [C] 35.56 [Fa] 8.89 [Fr] 3.33 [GP] 6.67 [TO] [O]	Satisf-MilitArch	5.89 (.26)	5.58 (1.71)	6.21 (1.48)
Duration	[1] 12.78 [2] 43.17 [3] 32.16 [4] 8.81 [5] 2.64 [6] 0.44	[1] 13.33 [2] 41.67 [3] 30.83 [4] 11.67 [5] 2.50	[1] 12.15 [2] 44.86 [3] 33.64 [4] 5.61 [5] 2.80 [6] 0.93	Satisf-ArchPriv	6.21 (.22)	6.29 (1.05)	6.14 (1.61)
TC (n = 226)	[1] 48.23 [2] 21.68 [3] 6.19 [4] 7.08 [5] 16.81	[1] 43.70 [2] 20.17 [3] 4.20 [4] 8.40 [5] 23.53	[1] 53.27 [2] 23.36 [3] 8.41 [4] 5.61 [5] 9.35	PM_1*	4.07 (.16)	4.55 (.19)	3.52 (.24)
ACT_1	80.62	79.17	82.24	PM_2*	4.39 (.16)	5.54 (.14)	3.09 (.23)
ACT_2	86.78	93.33	79.44	PM_3*	3.00 (.15)	3.98 (.20)	1.90 (.19)
ACT_3	41.85	42.5	41.12	PM_4	5.92 (.10)	6.13 (.10)	5.67 (.17)
ACT_4	44.93	46.67	42.99	PM_5*	1.61 (.10)	1.77 (.14)	1.42 (.13)
ACT_5	21.59	24.17	18.69	PM_6*	2.33 (.13)	2.90 (.19)	1.69 (.16)
PRES_1	77.09	80	7.83	FM_1*	5.84 (.12)	6.29 (.12)	5.33 (.21)
PRES_2	65.64	59.17	72.9	FM_2*	6.67 (.07)	6.87 (.06)	6.42 (.14)
PRES_3	57.27	52.5	62.62	FM_3*	6.33 (.09)	6.60 (.08)	6.01 (.15)
PRES_4	16.74	15.83	17.76	FM_4*	3.21 (.15)	4.04 (.19)	2.27 (.19)
PRES_5	17.62	15	20.56	FM_5*	3.74 (.15)	4.92 (.17)	2.40 (.19)
				FM_6*	3.99 (.15)	5.2 (.17)	2.62 (.19)
				SM_1*	5.8 (.12)	6.26 (.12)	5.28 (.20)
				SM_2*	4.86 (.14)	5.97 (.10)	3.59 (.22)
				SM_3*	4.44 (.15)	5.45 (.14)	3.29 (.21)
				SM_4*	2.78 (.14)	3.69 (.19)	1.74 (.15)

Note: Only SatisfArchPriv (italics) showed normality according to the Shapiro-Wilk test. Comparison of means was performed by t test. The rest of the mean comparisons were performed by Mann-Whitney U test; (*) indicates the existence of statistically significant differences at 95% or higher between the two classes.

Source: Authors.

Thanks to the results contained in Table 2, it is possible to establish the profiles of the Roots Genealogical Tourists (class 1) compared to Research Genealogical Tourists (class 2). The differences from a sociodemographic point of view are remarkable. Thus, Research Genealogical Tourists are primarily men (65.42%), of advanced age (37.38% are over 65), Spanish (67.29%) and retired (46.73%), traveling alone (45.55%) or as a couple (35.56%) and the latter to a greater extent than Roots Genealogical Tourists. Although the trip duration is similar, the expenditure is lower: 53.27% spend less than 600€, almost 10 percentage points more than their peers, and they carry out their research activity mainly in public archives and to a much greater extent in religious archives.

Roots Genealogical Tourists are notably younger, with a median age of 54, compared to 61 years old for Research Genealogical Tourists. The presence of men and women (57.5% and 42.5%) and of Spaniards and foreigners is more balanced (44.17% and 55.83%), and the volume of workers is significantly higher (64.17%) compared to retirees (23.33%). In addition to traveling alone or as a couple, they travel more with family members (twice as much, 15.74%) than those in Research Genealogical Tourists and spend much more (23.53% declare having spent more than 2,000€, 89.29% of them being foreign tourists). They are also more likely to visit where their ancestors lived (93.33%).

Conclusions

In this research, we have approached a field of work explored in a very incipient way within cultural tourism, which has to do with genealogical trips that combine tourist leisure with research in historical archives. It contributes, in this sense, to know what they are like, what the motivations of people who make tourist trips to visit the land of their ancestors and carry out on-site research in archives and what needs they require to carry out their activity. Our findings confirm that historical and Diocesan archives are the backbone on which these experiences move, not only because of their role in preserving and transmitting these experiences but also—and this is an element that is easily forgotten—as spaces for cultural interaction and identity building. Moreover, because despite technological advances in the digitization of funds, the presence in these places is still essential for many genealogists.

The analysis we have carried out reveals that emotional factors, such as the homage to ancestors and the search for self-knowledge, predominate among the motivations of genealogical root tourists. In contrast, genealogical research tourists show a more practical and professional approach to interacting with the archives. These differences enrich the understanding of this phenomenon and show the need to design differentiated strategies to meet the demands and expectations of each group. On the other hand, as observed in previous research, we confirm the interest of the participants in this study to engage in active cultural travel at their destination through archival research.⁹ This activity implies having sufficient economic, cultural, and educational resources, which correspond to the profile obtained in the representative sample of people over 50 years old and labor active. Although men are preeminent among these tourists, they make their trips alone or with their partners’ participation, without the need for significant economic expenses, extended stays or the company of more family members, a circumstance to be expected in people with older children and independent life.

As previously analyzed, their primary motivations are to learn about their ancestors’ land and do face-to-face research in archives. In contrast, they are not very attracted to other aspects, such as obtaining citizenship of the family's country of origin, learning about specific historical events, or learning about the existence of hereditary diseases. We interpret this as confirmation that their interest is, preferably, in their personal and family historical identity, completing their family tree, paying homage to their ancestors and leaving a legacy for their descendants. For this reason, it is coherent that he emphasizes his research facet. This is done prior to the trip, is done through digital procedures, which is valued very positively, and continues at the destination in person in public archives—the best valued—religious and to a lesser extent military and private.

Nevertheless, the satisfaction they find in the services they receive from these archives is not an obstacle to demanding improvement elements. Thus, most root tourists who do research in archives demand greater availability of documentary resources in digital media at a distance and more timetables for face-to-face consultations. In comparison, the centralization of archives or the existence of better physical facilities where to conduct research do not arouse as much support.

These preferences toward the digitization of historical documents are a bet in favor of preserving rich historical documentary heritage, which is very punished by war conflicts, natural disasters, or simple neglect and ignorance. The digital copying of these collections will reduce the use of originals for consultation, something relevant in documents in a delicate state of conservation, and will ensure their preservation for future generations, especially in the case of those that are not kept in archives that maintain strict security measures and physical care. On the other hand, it is evident that more human and material resources are required in the historical archives so that genealogical tourists can dedicate more time to their research tasks, especially in times like the present, in which many people from different parts of the world demand services of sending historical documents of their ancestors to justify requests for dual nationality.

The study sample refers to genealogists who belong to some collective, such as genealogical associations, cultural associations of expatriates or people linked to the field of institutions or associations of historical archives, and there is a reduced participation of people who have no link with any community or society of this type. However, one of the most important conclusions we have reached in this rigorous quantitative analysis, which we have based on a representative sample of Latin American amateur genealogists, is the identification of two different profiles of genealogical tourists, depending on the degree of importance they give to this research activity: the one we can call the Roots Genealogical Tourist—who focuses his trip on research in historical archives and the elaboration of his family tree with the emotional and cultural connection he has with the place of family origin—and the one we consider the Research Genealogical Tourist—who concentrates his travel days on documentary research in archives in order to complete his family tree from a more “professional” perspective, and on historical knowledge. However, although the length of the trip is similar and there are common motivations—such as the need to pay homage to ancestors, learn about family history and complete the family tree—research genealogical tourists are less interested in relating to the traditions of their places of origin and creating family and emotional ties with people from these places and with historical figures or celebrities, and they spend less per trip than root genealogical tourists.

From a sociodemographic point of view, there are also differences between both types of tourists since the so-called Research Genealogical Tourists are primarily men, elderly, of Spanish nationality, retired and with a greater propensity to travel alone or as a couple than Roots Genealogical Tourists and people who come from outside Spain. These, the Roots Genealogical Tourists, are younger, and there is a more balanced presence by sex and nationality among them. On a professional level, these are active people who prefer to travel as a family and go to the specific places where their ancestors lived.

These differences can be interpreted from the point of view of personal evolution, since as the age and the traveling and research experience of the genealogical tourist increase, their motivations, knowledge, and objectives change, especially when that knowledge is self-taught and when it has more free time.

Finally, from a much more practical and academic perspective, we have opened a new framework for studying genealogical tourism through a dialogue between disciplines such as genealogy, archival sciences, and cultural tourism. The implications derived from it significantly reach public policies, innovation and sustainability of heritage and management strategies for archives and tourist destinations, especially in rural areas with the undoubted potential for developing Roots or Genealogy Tourism. As we have seen, this type of tourism can act as a catalyst for the strengthening of local identities, as well as for economic revitalization and the promotion of a more accessible, inclusive, and plural cultural heritage of human identities. A population that knows its origin is a population that finds meaning in the diversity offered by its societies of residence.

Supplemental Material